Skip to main content

Full text of "History And Human Relation"

See other formats


history (though they have made contributions to the
study and in addition have said many stimulating things)
have tended to produce a kind of history and a type of
historical universe with which we must quarrel very
radically indeed. If they have been right in calling
attention to features of the historical process which
had been ignored or insufficiently appreciated, they
have fallen into an error parallel to that of their pre-
decessors—narrowing their vision, so that they had
eyes only for certain things.

In a fundamental sense—in a sense which reaches
far out beyond the mere question of historical method—
the whole Marxian outlook takes materialism for granted
and ties itself to a philosophy of materialism, just as the
ideal of the classless society has come to be allied and
entangled with atheism. The Marxist assumes that the
concrete, material and tangible things with which the
technical historian is concerned are sufficient to account
for everything—in other words, that historical ex-
planation can give us a total and self-sufficient
explanation of the universe. To the Marxist, then, the
materialism is everything and materialist history is a
self-complete, self-explanatory system. It is not apparent
that a person who rejected this view would necessarily
be incapacitated from agreeing (on a different level of
thought) ,with the Marxian explanation of the way in
which die historical process—the mechanism of con-
ditioning circumstance—actually works. The Marxian
theses concerning the concrete processes of history
might conceivably be held by people who did not share
the general materialistic outlook of the Communists—